Well.. seeing "criticism" and "webcomics" in the same sentence automatically makes me say No, webcomics criticizing games is not art. But, thinking about it, when webcomics criticize a game, they don't come out and say "This game sucked." Ok sometimes they do. The one I know most about (because I read it) is Ctrl-Alt-Del and Ethan goes a little bonkers over a bad game, but that's his character. The author can express his opinions through his characters, but he has to make sure it doesn't come off as something that's way off base. For example, Ethan goes loopy for MMOs. For him to suddenly hate them wouldn't be in character (well... it might...) so it wouldn't make sense. So, for webcomics, dialogue and character development are an art, so critcizing I think is, too.

For overall criticism though... well, I think that's a bad word to use, if we're trying to argue it's an artform. Critique or review will certainly come across more positively, and constructive-critcism, while not as marketable and appealing to the masses, is also a good choice. But people don't read newspapers to read the latest contructive-criticism of the new releases, they read the reviews. Reviews just point out the good and the bad and come with a star rating. I don't think they count as criticism since they don't usually have a "Since the lead actor's performance turned out less than stellar, I believe this actor would have been a better choice, with his history of performing in these types of roles..." or some such lather. It's usually "This wasn't the actor's best movie." And the word critiques just makes me think of food magazines for some reason, and I never read up on any fancy restaurants, so I'm stuck there.

My opinion? Yes, it's an artform, because you're selling your skill--how well you write determines if you keep getting paid. You have to keep yourself marketable in a (probably) vicious field. You have to be *liked* by your readers. You have to help the company sell newspapers and magazines, the same as any other journalist. If journalism is an art, then critics are artists.
Is it on the same level? Well, maybe! You have to know what you're talking about before you can criticize someone about doing a sub-par job (at least you should, and I'm sure any serious critic does). You can't say "Sally's latest book had a weak plot and generic characters" if you haven't read classic books or well-written authors and understand weak plot and generic characters. Ya know? You also can't use the same word over and over again. Dismal, desperate, reaching, failing, sub-par, distant, poor, lacking, un-convincing, etc. can all be used in place of "This movie was bad" so don't use the same one!

Umm that's all I can really think of right now.. convinced? I'm not, lol. It just feels weird to say critics are artists. :P

Ad1tu wrote:

Well.. seeing "criticism" and "webcomics" in the same sentence automatically makes me say No, webcomics criticizing games is not art. But, thinking about it, when webcomics criticize a game, they don't come out and say "This game sucked." Ok sometimes they do. The one I know most about (because I read it) is Ctrl-Alt-Del and Ethan goes a little bonkers over a bad game, but that's his character. The author can express his opinions through his characters, but he has to make sure it doesn't come off as something that's way off base. For example, Ethan goes loopy for MMOs. For him to suddenly hate them wouldn't be in character (well... it might...) so it wouldn't make sense. So, for webcomics, dialogue and character development are an art, so critcizing I think is, too.

Well, to clarify on that point, Ad1tu, it was actually about critics writing reviews of webcomics.  Like this guy (a review by Eric Burns-White, who is considered the Roger Ebert of webcomic reviewers).  I guess I was just trying to frame it in the context of the conversation.  (Though that doesn't invalidate your response or anything. :) )

One of the things that kinda gets me is that works of art can be critiqued.  But can critiques be critiqued?  I suppose so, but that creates a weird feedback loop where there seems to be no end.  Another thing is when you call a critic out on something, a typical response is, "Well, it's just a matter of opinion after all."  Whereas an artwork, whether visual, written, or musical, has to stand for something.

I think you raise a very good point that there's a difference between constructive criticism and reviews.  What bugs me about the original Newsrama article is that it's reviews that the pro-critic crowd wants to elevate as an artform.

Oh, man, what have I started?

Apparently, by linking to Websnark, Eric Burns-White has apparently decided to respond to my original question.  Also, he doesn't agree with me when I called him the Roger Ebert of webcomics.  I'd copy and paste his essay here, but it is, um, some 2,700 words long.